Stardate 20030127.1421

(On Screen): Credit where credit is due: the Blix report to the Security Council seems to be reasonably truthful and fair. He didn't try to justify or ignore or cover up the fact that Iraq is not actually wholeheartedly cooperating with the disarmament process, and clearly pointed out the fact that the effort to interview Iraqi scientists had been a bust. He pointed out that the 12,000 page report filed by Iraq was nearly all old material, and that little or none of it applied to the years after 1991. He pointed out that there were substantial stocks of weapons known to still exist when the inspectors left in 1998 which had not been accounted for.

It is not what I had expected, and I am impressed. It seems to be an accurate appraisal of what has happened, and it is equally clear that it shows that Iraq has not actually embraced this as an opportunity to voluntarily disarm, as it was required to do. He says as much:

Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.

And since UNSC Res 1441 clearly stated that this was Iraq's final opportunity to do exactly that, then it means the game is over. So what is Europe's answer? Give Iraq another "last chance":

In their joint statement, the EU ministers said the Iraqi leader faced "a final opportunity to resolve the crisis peacefully."

They added that Baghdad "must, as an imperative, provide the inspectors without delay with all the additional and complete information."

And, by damn, if Iraq doesn't take advantage of that one, then there will be yet another "last chance" after that.

Actually, they're not as unanimous as all that. There's a deep divide:

The EU is split down the middle on the issue, with Spain, Italy, Portugal and others leaning toward the British view, while Belgium, Sweden and Finland are in a group closer to the Franco-German position.

By the way, thank you, John Howard. The Prime Minister of Australia spoke straight: Iraq is not truly cooperating and is in "material breach".

In fact, reactions from all over the world were totally predictable. Everyone had already decided what they would say even before Blix and El Baradei made their reports, but with Blix frankly stating that Iraq has not fully cooperated it makes some of those responses seem a bit lame. For instance, Germany's Joschka Fischer stated that "war is no answer" and said that the inspections required more time. I'm told by a friend in Germany that this may well not be Fischer's own opinion, but it doesn't really matter. Germany still opposes war and always will as long as Schroeder is chancellor, unless Germany itself becomes the victim of a major terrorist attack.

Schroeder played the anti-American card last year in the runup to the elections because his party was behind in the polls. And it is now thought that it did indeed turn things around and permit him to stay in power. So what with his party in deep trouble in two major local elections, he seems to be trying to do it again – only this time it isn't working, because the voters are more worried about the German economy.

The details of why various leaders say what they say are capable of endless dissection and analysis, but at a certain point it's all meaningless. You have to fish or cut bait. When you give someone an ultimatum and they ignore you, you have to follow through or forever be weakened. Iraq was given a last chance to cooperate, and didn't. That's the irreducible fact. Now it's time to act.

No one knows what Bush will say in his State of the Union message tomorrow, but there can be no doubt that it will be watched closely by much of the world, for it will make extremely clear his real policy, and whether he is truly resolved (though the early hints are that he is). And for all the posturing of other leaders around the world, it remains the case that the decision about war will be made in the Oval Office.